BTTT and updated: (Update 5 includes a question.) 

ModernConservative.com has received a tip from a reliable source that may have election-shattering implications.

According to our source, an activist here in Arizona has been approached by the Ron Paul campaign; the campaign has requested that he run the Arizona effort to get Ron Paul on the general election ballot as a candidate of the Constitution Party.

Our source has requested anonymity, and we have agreed. We can, however, vouch for his/her reliability. Our source also provided us with details that added credibility to the account. (Unfortunately, disclosure of those details would put at risk our promise of anonymity. We apologize for the unnamed sourcing and lack of further details, but those were the requirements that accompanied this revelation.)

We will keep you apprised of any new developments.


There has been a lot of analysis on the impact that Ron Paul has already had, and on the impact that he might have moving forward. There will be a lot more analysis...and if he does, as it appears, run in the general election, there will obviously be voluminous amounts of focus and attention. One can only hope that shining a bright light on Ron Paul will have the effect of showing the nation who he is and what he supports, and thus diminishing his impact.

Unfortunately, he is currently garnering a fair amount of underground support. Healthy political activity is welcome in a representative democracy, but Ron Paul's candidacy is, in our view, not good for the Republic.

He has received support from an ugly confluence of 9/11 truthers, anti-war activists, and very likely George Soros and MoveOn.org.

He has received money and support from neo-Nazis, and he has refused to return the money.

He blames the United States for 9/11.

And just this past week on Meet the Press, he said that Lincoln was wrong to have fought the Civil War (commented on at FreeRepublic and polled by AOL).

This man, in our view, does not inject much needed debate into American politics, he injects poison. His likely presence in the general election will magnify the impact of that poison, which makes the revelation we report to you today all the more dire.

Update 1:

The FR thread on this has already exploded with comments both positive and (a few) negative, as one might expect. One point that was made was that this was (or should have been) obvious to observers of politics.

It might have been obvious that it was a possibility. Certainly the Constitution Party seems to like Paul...a lot. But we have received actual information on this possibility, beyond mere speculation and assumptions based on analysis and conclusions about likelihoods. Does our information guarantee a Paul run in the general election? No. But it is the first information of which we are aware that suggests both the possibility and the identity of the party with which he would align himself.

Update 2:

It behooves me to clarify this a little bit. We do not have proof of a third-party candidacy; we have the information stated at the beginning of this article, which is strongly suggestive of a third-party run, specifically with the Constitution Party. I would have thought that this would have been obvious from the nature of the sourcing, which we were completely candid about, i.e., that it was a single source, etc. In other words, we are not trying to hide the fact that this is not confirmed by multiple sources. I also did use the phrase "likely presence" and said that we are aware that this information does not "guarantee a Paul run in the general election." Granted, the headline has a bit of a sensationalist tinge to it. Mea culpa. Now take the information for what it is, and please drop the "this isn't fully sourced" meme, because that should be obvious.

Update 3:

The Constitution Party is courting Ron Paul. This makes the rumor seem more, rather than less, likely.

Also, in contradiction to the promise I heard him make with my own ears on the Michael Medved show, in which he said he would not run third-party, he is now refusing to rule out the possibility.

Update 4:

Ron Paul blames the assassination of Benazir Bhutto on the “interventionist” policy of the United States, and says Al Qaeda is justified in being “annoyed” at us. Delightful. (HT: FreeRepublic)

Update 5:

I am trying to figure out why Ron Paul supporters tend, in aggregate, to be much more hate-filled and angry than others. Look at threads over at FreeRepublic. Look at the comment thread here—heck, there's even a barely disguised death threat in there. Giuliani has been roundly savaged in some quarters, as has Romney, McCain, and Huckabee. Why aren't their supporters frothing over with venom and threats? If anyone has an answer, I'd love to know.